The Illusion of Control

This Jeffrey Goldberg anecdote doesn’t convey the message he thinks it does:

The rebels were quick to tell me that they only grew beards because the more radical Islamists among them had the best weapons, and would only supply these weapons to like-minded rebels. In other words, the beards were simply a marketing tool, not an expression of sincere radicalism [bold mine-DL]. If the more moderate among the rebels suddenly began receiving heavier weapons from the Americans, they would be empowered, and the Islamists marginalized.

If there are rebels willing to pretend to be radical Islamists in order to acquire the weapons they need, is it not also very likely that there are just as many or even more that will pretend not to be in order to do the same? It is a given that insurgents will claim to believe what their patron wants them to believe, but that is no guarantee that they will actually be the “moderate” insurgents that they are supposed to be. Considering how eager many American politicians are to believe in the “rehabilitation” of groups as fanatical as the MEK simply because they have the “right” enemy, we should consider the possibility that the U.S. could just as easily be duped into arming groups that conveniently say all the right things.

This is an inherent problem in intervening on the side of an opposition that we know includes jihadists and other groups that the U.S. isn’t normally interested in providing with weapons. On the one hand, the folly of providing weapons to groups that are professed enemies of the United States is obvious, but the urge to intervene is apparently so great that some compromise solution has to be found. This is how we get to the absurd point where we try to define and identify which armed groups the U.S. should wholeheartedly support and which we should seek to “marginalize,” as if we possessed the depth of knowledge or control to do either one. We don’t, and our policy should reflect that.

These are just propaganda arguments put forth to try to give a patina of reasonability to the phony public cover story for making more war.

The only illusion of control at work here is that what the majority of the people of the U.S. wants makes a significant difference to foreign policy decisions; what the people think must be controlled via propaganda like this to provide assent to what has already been decided by the elites.

Based on his apparent level of gullibility, I’m waiting for a future column from Goldberg in which he explains that he’s retiring because at any moment he’ll be receiving a wire transfer of $20 million for helping a Nigerian bank president’s widow to get her family’s fortune out of the country.

The sole rational interest the US has in Syria it’s far to late to achieve. The civil war is well on the way to destabilizing Jordan and Lebanon. Whatever happens that’s just going to get worse. Israel is basically screwed. Being surrounded by hostile countries is going to be a walk in the park compared to being surrounded by countries with no governments and thousands of desperate refugees. There was a slim chance this could have been avoided. But the window for that closed 6 months after the first big demonstration.

Wow. This is just comically stupid. If a guy acts in a way I wouldn’t like, it’s because he’s putting on an act for somebody else, but if he acts the way I want him to, he’s sincere? Did he really think about that argument before he said it? Like I said before, it would nice if they at least pretended some respect for the public by giving us an argument that seemed even superficially plausible, but they can’t even do that. I’m outraged – can’t Americans expect BS that’s better presented than this?

“The Palestinian militants were quick to tell me that their opposition was only to the settler movement, not to Israel itself. ” —- Things Goldberg would never say.

Nobody has thus far answered how a massive arms-dealing campaign is going to distinguish between the two. Once the arms are in rebel hands, who knows where they go? All we get is reminders that “moderate” rebels exist. Goldberg is essentially calling for us to use the good ol’ “Which Beard is an Authentic Expression of Radicalism?” detector that has not, to my mind, been actually invented.

Mont D. Law wrote: “[Israel being] surrounded by hostile countries is going to be a walk in the park compared to being surrounded by countries with no governments and thousands of desperate refugees.”

I disagree. I think Israel is just fine with that situation and has done much to bring it about. Chaos in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria means Israel can relax, cook up rationales for new borders and new crackdowns in Gaza and the West Bank, launch cost-free bomb strikes, send in lots of spies, fiddle local balances of power with arms sales and intel, and many other things that Israel likes to do. It won’t have to pretend to listen to boring harangues from credible governments about Palestinian rights at the UN, its US agents of influence will lobby for the US to send more money and weapons tech because of the putatively dire situation, etc., etc. Win win!

The last thing in the world Israel wants is to have to deal with healthy, stable governments capable of pushback. Look for this to drag out for a very, very long time.

If there are rebels willing to pretend to be radical Islamists in order to acquire the weapons they need, is it not also very likely that there are just as many or even more that will pretend not to be in order to do the same?

As Spock told Kirk at the very end, the savage Mirror Kirk could not adapt to civilisation as well as civilised Kirk adapted to the Empire in the Mirror Universe. So it’s quite obvious that while the good guys can pretend to be bad guys, bad guys have a difficult time pretending to be good guys.

What did you say, taqqiah – the principle that, according to neocons, permits, even requires, pious Muslims to lie in the interests of Islam, so that no matter what Muslims say, you cannot believe them? This is trotted out any time there is a peaceful statement out of Tehran. So how does that work with Goldberg,s observation, and your rejoinder? It’s obvious of course. Iranians, and Muslims generally, can lie about a lot of things, but not how pious they are. No sir. Muslims may lie about nuclear weapons, but will not lie about their believe for small arms.

we should consider the possibility that the U.S. could just as easily be duped into arming groups that conveniently say all the right things.

Well, of course it’s given that Obama is a naive inoverhishead bleeding heart terrorist hugging Muslim, but you miss the point. No one who says all the right things can dupe American officials. I mean, what next, you will argue that Ahmad Chalabi duped the Bush Administration? What utter tosh.

The trouble with chaos (from Israel’s perspective) is that it is really hard to control. How to you keep rogue elements from committing small-scale but cumulatively really nasty attacks on Israel when there is no one visible to hold accountable from the attacks. Syria under Assad was a hostile power, but it had a government that could order its army not to attack Israel, and its army would not attack Israel. Their cease-fire has held since the 1973 war. If Syria erupts into chaos, there is no such guarantee.

Ernesto Cardinal has some humorous observations about how beards became a necessary fashion statement for city folk who had not begun up in the mountains with Fidel and Che during the Cuban Revolution. (See In Cuba. I’d see it myself if I could remember what box it’s in.)

But guys who kept their beards too long after the revolution where considered to be hippie golfos, unwilling to cut cane with a machete sixteen hours a day for the greater good.

“he trouble with chaos (from Israel’s perspective) is that it is really hard to control. How to you keep rogue elements from committing small-scale but cumulatively really nasty attacks on Israel when there is no one visible to hold accountable from the attacks. Syria under Assad was a hostile power, but it had a government that could order its army not to attack Israel, and its army would not attack Israel. Their cease-fire has held since the 1973 war. If Syria erupts into chaos, there is no such guarantee.”

Basically, you run a 10-mile free fire zone across from the Israeli border; anything spotted by drones, aircraft or land-based sensors gets bombed. And/or come to a carrot and stick deal with the locals there; they’ll get aid if there are no attacks, and bombed if there are.

And note that Israel has been dealing quite comfortably with Lebanon’s chaos for decades.

(note – I’m assuming that that the odd rocket attack which might on a good day actually kill somebody in Israel is not a bad thing from the viewpoint of people who want more war)

Perhaps what we need to do is provide lots and lots of razors, bacon and beer to the Syrian opposition and tell them that we can only provide weapons for them if they demonstrate their fealty to freedom and democracy by shaving off their beards, chowing down on a BLT and washing it down with a PBR.

“And note that Israel has been dealing quite comfortably with Lebanon’s chaos for decades.”

Don’t forget Jordan, with a Palestinian refugee population of 2 million. That’s the rough equivalent of the US hosting 100 million Mexican refugees. It has been and remains a destabilizing factor in Jordan.

On the whole I agree with those above who say that Israel thrives on “chaos” and has – as in the case of Jordan – deliberately exported it. External chaos is a competitive advantage for a small, disciplined country with large but disorderly neighbors.